In this paper, I first discuss the manner in which
ultimate truth is understood by Shakya Chogden
(1428-1507), in accord with his interpretation of
Nagarjuna and Candrakirti. I will then compare
Shakya Chogden's interpretation of Gorampa
Sonam Senge (1429-1489). Since these two
great scholars played very important roles in the
Sakya School, a clear understanding of that
school must in part come from an investigation
of whether their interpretations of Nagarjuna
and Candrakirti's teaching on ultimate truth is
different. In addition, since Shakya Chogden is
known as one of the great scholars of "gzhan
stong" ("other-emptiness") and Gorampa is
known as one of the great scholaqrs of "rang
stong" ("self-emptiness"), it is worth considering
whether Shakya Chogden's interpretation was
influenced by gzhan stong philosophy.

The Madhyamika

A Madhyamika is a person who propounds
Buddhist tenets and who asserts that there
are no truly existent phenomena, not even
particles. The literal meaning of the term
Madhyamika is "proponent of the Middle
Way." A Madhyamika avoids all extremes,
such as eternalism and nihilism, self and
non-self, matter and spirit, body and soul,
substance and process, unity and plurality,
affirmation and denial, and identity and
difference. According to the Madhyamaka,
one who treads this version of the Middle
Way is understanding the true spirit of the
Buddha's teachings. The opening
salutation of the Mulamadhyamikakarika goes
as follows:

I prostrate to the Perfect Buddha, supreme
teacher, who taught that whatever is
dependently arisen is free from all extremes;
unceasing, non-arising, unannihilated, not
permanent, without diversity, without singularity,
not coming, not going.

Nagarjuna (2nd century A.D.) is generally
regarded by Buddhologists as the founder of
the Madhyamika school. For Nagarjuna, the
process of studying Buddhist philosophy is to
atain liberation. The way to liberation, as
mentioned earlier, is the elimination of
ignorance through the realization of ultimate
truth. Hence, Nagarjuna seeks to lead his
readers to the realization of ultimate truth.
However, he does not mean to bring us simply
to a mere understanding in words, for words
are only conventional constructions. Much
philosophy loses itself in conceptualization, and
many philosophers are like thirsty travellers in a
desert who, not knowing the difference
between reality and illusion, are tempted by the
mirage and rush in vain from place to place
hoping to quench their thirst. But just as a
mirage cannot quench our thirst, so also
conceptual constructions of the real. The failure
to distinguish between reality itself and the
mere conceptualization of reality is ignorance,
which breeds suffering. Nagarjuna seeks to
bring us beyond conceptions of reality to an
actual experience of reality as it truly is. By
doing so, ignorance is ended and liberation is
attained.

The Two Truths

The two truths are very important in the
Madhyamika system. The two truths are
conventional truth (Tib, kun rdzob kyi bden pa)
and ultimate truth (Tib, don dam pai bden pa).
They are briefly explained in the Mulamadhyamikakarika
chapter 24 verses 8-10:

The Buddha taught teachings, relied on two
truths: mundane conventional truth and ultimate
truth. Those who do not know the difference
between these two truths do not know the
profound points in the teachings of the Buddha.
The ultimate is not taught without resorting
to convention. Without understanding the
ultimate, nirvana cannot be attained.

Domain of The Two Truths

According to Shakya Chogden, the basis for
the classification of the two truths is mere
truth (Tib, bden pa tsam). It is called 'mere'
because it has not been classified as either
real (dngos) or unreal (btags). When we
speak of the two truths, we are speaking in
the realm of concepts. Conceptually, one
can divide this domain onto two truths or
just one truth. However, objectively there is
no truth whatsoever because if there were
truth objectively, the Buddhas and
Bodhisattvas would have seen it in their
meditative equipoise; yet they do not see
anything. So for Shakya Chogden, as long
as we speak of 'truths' we are still speaking
in conventional terms. (pp. 15-16)

The Classification of Ultimate Truth

Within the realm of conventional
designations, Shakya Chogden presents
two types of ultimate truth. The two are,
worldly ultimate truth ('jig rten gyi don dam
bden pa) and the ultimate truth of the Noble
Ones ('phags pai don dam bden pa). The
former is defined as that which is found or
obtained by a correct worldly perception. Its
ordinary things that are familiar to everyone
from scholars to cowherds. This kind of
ultimate truth has two aspects: "the
objective aspect of appearing of this and
that" (de dang der snang bai yul gyi cha);
and "the aspect that is wrongly
superimposed upon that" (de la phying ci
log tu sgro btags pai cha). For instance,
'yellow' and 'hot' are true form the
prospective of grasping them as true, so
they are called worldly ultmate truth ('jig
rten du grags pa) (p. 22).

Definition

The definition of the ultimate truth from the
point of view of the Noble One is that which
is found or obtained by means of correct
perception from the perspective of a Noble one.
Its instance is that which is not seen in any way
as the above mentioned worldly ultimate truth by
the meditative equipoise gnosis of the Noble
One. That which is not seen is conceptually
presented (sgro btags) as ultimate truth, but
of this kind of ultimate truth (p. 23). In the
Autocommentary of Madhyamikavatara,
Candrakirti says:

Since the ultimate truth cannot be expressed
and is not an object of cognition, it cannot
be shown. Therefore, an example is illustrated.

The example is:

One should know that suchness (de nyid) is
like that nature (bdag nyid) as which one
with clear eyes sees the false entities such
as hairs that have been conceptually constructed
by (a person) under the influence of cataracts.

Etymology

To present the etymology of ultimate truth,
Shakya Chogden summarises the opinion of
Acarya Jnanagarbha:

An awareness (rig pa) arisen from a
complete three-mode-reasoning (tshul gsum
tshang bai rtags) is called 'ultimate' / 'noble'
because it is non-deceptive. Since that very
thing is also an 'object', it is called 'ultimate
object' / 'noble object'.

"That (one) is an object and also noble;
therefore, it is the noble object. Since those two
(object and noble) are true, it is the ultimate
truth."

So 'noble' and 'truth' are synonyms, and it
is called an 'object' (don, artha) both because it
is reality (gnas lugs) and because it is that which
is sought (don du gnyer bya) by a cognition of
the ultimate. (pp. 29-30)

Gorampa Sonam Senge's interpretation of ultimate truth
except for minor terminological differences, the interpretations
of these two scholars are very similar. For instance, Gorampa said:

In brief, since the cognition that examines
reality is not beyond the conceptualization
that grasps name and thing together, it grasps
one of the four extremes..... Although it is
explained as ultimate from the point of view
of a cognition that grasps (things) as truly
existent, it is in fact the conventional truth
from the point of view of the unpolluted gnosis
of the meditative equipoise of the Noble one.
Therefore, it is the normal ultimate truth
(rnam grangs pai don dam bden pa) or similitude
ultimate truth (don dam pa rjes mthun pa). The
real ultimate truth cannot be grasped by any
cognition. In many authoritarian texts, "seeing
by means of not seeing" (ma mthong bai tshul
gyis mthong ba) is the real ultimate truth.
(Gorampa's lta' bai shan 'byed p. 35a and 35b)

In other texts, emptiness is identified as
the ultimate truth. Understanding emptiness
is not easy, especially for those who have not
accumulated enough merit. Nagarjuna warns in his
Mulamadhyamikakarika, chapter 24.11:

If emptiness is viewed wrongly, those of
inferior intellect are ruined, like wrongly
holding a snake or wrongly using a spell.

By comparing these two great scholars' explanations
of ultimate truth, I have become convinced that they
are saying the same thing but using different styles. I
personally found Shakya Chogden's writing clearer and
more compelling. Reading the dbu ma nyes don bang mdzod
has led me to believe that on the basis of this text at least,
Shakya Chogden was definitely not influenced by the gzhan
stong school. The arguments he presents make him no less
a "Rang stongpa" than Gorampa.